Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill

The bill is to be debated clause by clause. Members must stick to the subject matter of those clauses.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for allowing me to take the first call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that we are debating the bill on a clause by clause basis, and the first clause, of course, reflects that the name of the Act will be the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Act. The term “new entrants” was certainly debated during the select committee hearing, as it was thought that it might not necessarily reflect that we are dealing with young workers in the workplace. However, that is the terminology that has been accepted.

I say from the outset that we do think this bill is well intentioned. We think it is an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just remind the member that we are talking about the title.

Yes. I was just talking about the new entrants, and I thought, as part of the title, that perhaps I could—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): OK.

I appreciate that we are talking about the title, and the bill is about the new entrants. It is called the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. In describing new entrants, what we are doing is describing young workers, 16 to 17-year-olds, who are presently paid the youth rate, which is 80 percent of the adult minimum wage.

I say again that we think the bill is well intentioned. We are not necessarily convinced that the title is correct, but we really must look at substance over form rather than form over substance. We do believe that the bill is an attempt to avoid exploitation of, and discrimination against, young workers, but I have to say we do not believe that this is the right instrument to do that. Indeed, we believe that the bill may do the very opposite and price the young workers—the new entrants—out of the labour market, and we are concerned about that.

We are also concerned that these new entrants, in accordance with the title of the bill, may be tempted or encouraged to leave school so that they can get employment. Again, we think that young people, especially 16 and 17-year-olds—whether they are called young people or new entrants—should be encouraged to stay in education for as long as possible in order to get a formal education, skills training, or whatever. We would rather they be encouraged to stay at school and not become a new entrant to the workforce because they have been lured by the adult minimum wage or by the provisional adult minimum wage for those 200 hours of work, which, I understand, is to be increased to 90 days by way of a Supplementary Order Paper.

When I listened to the second reading debate on this bill—which, again, included the title—I did note the fundamental point made by the honourable Sue Bradford. I do commend her for this bill, but I noted her comment that the fundamental point of the original bill was to remove discrimination based on age from the minimum wage law. To use her terms, and to accept the premise of age-based discrimination, I say that this bill is still discriminatory, because it now discriminates, in its revised form, against 14 and 15-year-olds.

The bill, as we know, started as an attempt to abolish the youth rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is straying from the title. I am going to be strict, because it is the title we are debating.

I do believe, Madam Chairperson, that the title has to be discussed in the context of the bill, and I am trying to wrap the title around the context of the bill.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not doing it very well.

I am quite happy with what I am doing, I say to the Minister. I go back to the title of the bill, which originally was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The majority of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended that clause 1, the title clause of the original bill, be changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill.

It is worth thinking about who new entrants are. Members of the select committee, of whom I am one, met many of them and it was a great privilege to hear from those young workers. I was certainly very, very impressed with them. They are workers who work in hospitality, retail, and so on, and they are the workers who will be affected by this new entrants provision.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Can we have some fairness in the Chamber?

The original title was about ending age discrimination, I say to Mr Mapp. I said during the first reading debate that we had to think about that. It was an important issue that we needed to consider. I believe that in terms of the title of the bill, the select committee has looked at the issue very seriously and approached it responsibly. I think members will find that we do consider that the basis of the argument is right, in that paying workers on the basis of age is neither just nor sensible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to keep to the title.

And the title, I think, reflects our consideration on that.

Other submitters talked about paying young workers and new entrants. There was some argument—I heard it from the opposite side, actually—that having a new entrants rate then led to a higher rate, which would discourage young workers from staying at school. One quote is worth repeating. A young worker said that if payment of a few dollars more will make 16 and 17-year-olds quit school, they will be quitting school anyway. I thought that was a very important point. I think the title takes into account the genuine concerns of many who felt that young workers in their very first jobs often lacked work socialisation skills and required more time and investment to adapt to working life, and that is what the title of this bill is about. Although the committee agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be paid differently just because of their age, we did accept the argument that the inexperience of first-time workers or new entrants deserves the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work.

The new entrant concept is not a new one in the workplace. What it is effectively doing is paying workers for experience, and that is common in many workplaces and in many agreements. Experience is often recognised through service pay, so one could say that the provision is for a form of service pay. The new entrant provision means that people have to work a certain amount of time, then they get paid more. I think what is really great about the bill, though—and it is reflected in the title—is that thousands and thousands of workers will get a pay rise once they are no longer covered by the new entrant provision. It builds on the work Labour has done since we became the Government. I know this may be out of order, Madam Chair, but I do have to hold up this little chart.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is out of order, and I just remind the member again about the title. Members have plenty of opportunity to debate the main clauses of the bill as we are doing it clause by clause. There are five questions.

I will certainly come back to my chart. The debate around new entrants is a very interesting one, and I can see my colleague over there having a laugh, because “new entrants” is an interesting description of people coming into the workforce. It is quite a strange term, particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time.

💬 Hone Harawira: Young slaves!

No, they are not young slaves. The description is used for schoolchildren. We did debate a little bit about how we could better describe this phenomenon of new workers coming into the workplace, such as “first-time workers” or “new workforce participants”. But on reflection I think the title does express the intention of the bill very clearly, which is to pay an adult minimum wage to workers who have completed a very short period of work and have gained some experience. It recognises that when new workers come into the workforce they have some experience to gain. The period of work is a very short time and I am pleased that we have made really good progress on what that will mean in practice. It will mean, of course, that once new workers have completed the period of work for new entrants they will get a huge pay rise, and is not that a wonderful thing? Who would deny 16 and 17-year-old workers a huge pay rise? In fact, I do not know any workers who would say no to that level of pay rise, and I really have to ask: what is wrong with that?

I think the title of the bill does reflect what the bill is all about. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill, Sue Bradford, for bringing this issue to the House. I thank her for doing that because I think it is a very important thing for us to be discussing.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. I would like to speak to the title. The original title was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, and I think it should have stayed like that because that describes what the bill does and does not do. In fact, a good title would be the “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill”, because that is exactly what it does. One wants the title to say what the bill actually does. This is no different from Dr Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probationary period legislation, which we did not support. This is the same thing.

The title is wrong. New entrants could be 20-year-olds or they could be 50-year-olds entering into the workforce or into a particular job, so having the words “New Entrants” in the title does not really encapsulate the idea of someone of that age, but rather the idea of someone entering the workforce. If one goes shearing, then one can be a new entrant into shearing at any age. Certainly as a rousie or a presser, one can learn in 2 days what one is required to do, and go straight into that sort of mahi. Furthermore, with the age structure the way it is, many Māori fall into that category of youth. So as we multiply, as we are doing, we will come under this legislation.

I was really excited when Sue Bradford brought this bill forward, because it was Māori Party policy right from the very beginning to remove that discrimination. But the bill does not remove the discrimination at all; it just changes the name. Therefore, the title Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is the wrong name, and it should be left as “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill”, because that is what it does. Kia ora.

I will be taking a couple of calls on the bill. I appreciate that this debate is about the title, and the substance of the bill is really contained in clause 4. My next speech will be focused around that.

It is extraordinary, is it not? We had the bill starting off as the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, and it was a complete abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. The promoter of the bill, Sue Bradford, was very proud of that fact; that she was standing up for the rights of the oppressed youth throughout the nation. National opposed that abolition. We saw the age period, 16 and 17, as quite a short period and, in fact, we think the bill provides some perverse incentives basically to encourage youngsters to leave school earlier than they might otherwise do.

We now have a change to “New Entrants”, which is actually misleading. I would have to agree with the previous speaker, Dr Pita Sharples, that it is misleading. The whole point of the bill still, if one reads clause 4, is about 16 and 17-year-olds, whereas in fact it is a pretence that it is only new entrants. I also note the point that Dr Sharples was making about the 90-day legislation, which he supported, and in which I had made amendments to make it easier for the Māori Party to support in the long run. They know that. They were given plenty of notice on that.

💬 Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are talking about the title, not the 90-day legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, obviously the member wants his speech cut short. Keep to the title.

I was merely commenting on a previous speech, which, of course, one is entitled to do provided one does not digress too much.

Returning to the title issue, it is actually now, I think, a misleading title to refer to it solely as “New Entrants”. The core of the bill is still about 16 and 17-year-olds and relates directly to the abolition of age discrimination, which was the original title of the bill. So I have to ask the promoter of the bill why she agreed to this change. In fact, she should have stuck to her kaupapa and said “this is actually about 16 and 17-year-olds only, and it is about abolition of age discrimination.” That, at least, would meet the requirement of legislation, which is to tell the public what it is about. The new title, unfortunately, fails that most basic of tests.

How can we be sitting in this Parliament today purporting to pass legislation through the Committee stage with a title that is actually misleading? At the very minimum there should have been some reference to the fact of the age discrimination issues. Maybe it could have been called the “New Entrants Age Discrimination Removal Bill”—something like that would have at least connected the new idea with the 90-day period and the purpose of the bill: the abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds.

I should say that National is still fundamentally unconvinced that this measure is necessary; we do not believe it is. We believe, as indeed is evident, people are able to negotiate these kinds of arrangements, and one such negotiation has already occurred. So employers have flexibility; they have different requirements and demands. While it is easier for large employers, such as Progressive Enterprises, it is not so easy for smaller employers. So we still remain unconvinced of the merits or the necessity of the bill.

Clearly we recognise that it has been improved, and I would have to put that on record. Clearly the bill has been improved, and one of the issues that was raised through the select committee process was, in fact, the whole issue of new entrants—a training period, if one will. The promoter of the bill will recall the discussion from the National side of the Committee on those very points, and we do note that there has been some accommodation of that. But on the issue of the general principle we feel the bill is an excessive intrusion into the freedom of employment arrangements between people. We believe it will act still as a perverse incentive that will stop people furthering education and training, but we understand the intent of the bill.

I take the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage on clause 1, the title clause, of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The title was the subject of some change at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I was pleased to be a member of that select committee. The title of the bill is one of the things that the committee made an amendment to, and a fact that many other speakers have alluded to.

I want to talk about some of the reasons behind that change to the title. I differ from the previous speaker in that I believe that the New Zealand public understands exactly what the phrase “new entrants” means. It is the perfect description of what this bill does. The term describes people who are newly entered into the workplace in New Zealand. It is a very common term that we use for children entering the school system. We do not for example say, when someone is in year 7 and changes schools, that that child is a new entrant. No, we do not say that. We say that new entrants are those who are new to the education system. They are newly learning the processes and structures involved in the education system. So the concept of a new entrant is one that is well understood in the New Zealand environment, and is very appropriate to use for what this bill does.

At the select committee we did not talk just about people who are new to a particular work environment, because that would be discriminatory. People change jobs all the time and become new to the work environment, but that is not what we are talking about in this bill. In this bill we are referring to those people who are having the experience of paid employment for the first time in their working lives.

I am sure that many members in this Chamber can still reflect for themselves on what it felt like to be a new entrant into the workforce. Certainly, for myself as a new entrant, it was a bit of a shock to the system. My first job on leaving school was working in horse racing stables, and that entailed getting up at 4 o’clock in the morning. It felt very much like a completely different scenario from getting up at 8 o’clock in the morning, preparing my school lunch, getting on the school bus, going to school, and really being the recipient of information coming towards me.

Obviously, when people move into paid employment, they are not the passive recipients of information coming towards them; they are often required to be producing, and to be producing every hour of their working day. That is quite a shift, and quite an adjustment, that new entrants into the work environment need to make.

So I support the title that the select committee came up with: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. We could have called it the “Minimum Wage (Put our Money Where our Mouth is When it Comes to Low Pay) Amendment Bill” also, because I think that that is one of the things that this bill does. Those parties that will be supporting this bill can proudly stand up and say: “Yes, when it comes to low pay we are prepared to do something practical and something real to deal with low pay; it is not just a bumper slogan that we reel out during an election year.” In conclusion, I tell the Committee that I support clause 1, the title: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill.

The name of this bill is a shame—the “New Entrants Bill”. Sue Moroney has just talked about new entrants going to school. There is a difference, I tell her—we do not pay 5-year-olds to go to school. There is a big difference. We are talking about people going into the workforce here.

The original bill was called the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, but we will not be able to call the bill by that name any longer, because this bill will maintain discrimination against those people who are young. It has this new, fancy kind of title because it continues to discriminate. I am ashamed to listen to these so-called tough unionists talking about workers’ rights, etc., etc., when they are shafting the next generation of workers. They are from the party that talks about the working class—but let me take this back to the title of the bill.

The Māori Party would like to call this bill the “Abolition of Age Discrimination Bill”, because we are a tough, unionised, working class - type party. However, in this bill we are about to reaffirm discrimination against young people, so we cannot call it that.

💬 Darien Fenton: Oh, rubbish!

But that is what you are doing, Darien—you know that I am right. You are affirming discrimination against people on the basis of age.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member was bringing the Chair into the debate—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: He was not!

💬 Sue Moroney: —during that speech, and he knows not to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): OK. Dr Mapp, you are lucky to be here. The member knows that that was a point of order and that he does not talk through a point of order. I gather that the member who had the call was using the word “you”, and it is something we certainly want members to cease doing. Thank you.

My apologies—my apologies. There could be another title for this bill, when the thinking was: “We, the Labour Party, did our best to oppose Wayne Mapp’s 90-day bill, and we have decided to be really, really radical and introduce a Supplementary Order Paper so that this one becomes a 3-month bill, which just happens to be, hello, 90 days.” I am ashamed to say that there is hardly any difference there.

💬 Darien Fenton: Oh, rubbish!

No, no—we are talking about the title here.

I want everybody to realise one other fact here. It is that discrimination on the basis of age is against human rights, and Labour is pushing through Supplementary Order Papers and a bill to ensure that that discrimination will continue.

I have been known to call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. I will give a quote from Martin Luther King: “Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.” That is why I call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. Young people have no option but to accept it when their so-called union and working-class protectors have affirmed that that is the way it will be.

If it is true that it takes 8 hours to train a person, then why do we need to have a 200-hour limit in the bill? If it is true that it takes 16 hours—

💬 Darien Fenton: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is straying again from the title. Please come back to the title.

I would like to wrap it up there, but I will make the point that the bill is inconsistent with the philosophy of unionism and the rights of the working class. It is inconsistent for a Labour Government to be talking about the title of the bill as being about new entrants when, in fact, it is a “Continuation of Discrimination Against People on the Basis of Age Bill.”

I take this opportunity to take a short call in this Committee stage, in relation to the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill, and the fact that we are talking at this stage about the title of the bill. If we are to consider the title and how it should reflect the substantive matter of the bill, then I think that the title is appropriate.

I disagree with the previous speaker from the Northern Territory that it in fact does represent—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member must refer to other members correctly.

I beg your pardon. The title does in fact reflect the substantive nature of the bill, because the bill is about the minimum wage. It is about making sure some statutes are in place that address minimum wages, and it also reflects those minimum wages for new entrants.

So I think that the bill is timely and that it is appropriately named. It is aimed at the group of workers that traditionally have had a long history of problems surrounding their rates of pay. Other names in the past have been used to describe pay rates for that category of workers, if we are talking about whether this title is appropriate. Other names that have been bandied around have been “youth rates” and “under a certain age rates”. But I think we have come to a stage where, in considering this entire bill, the title is appropriate. It addresses the matters we are about to discuss, as we continue this debate in the Committee stage, and I stand in support of the title of this bill.